second marriage be then doe they disallow second marriage because a man is thereby disabled to be a Minister if not simply yet they make it lesse lawful nay more offensiue and subiect to obloquie and reproch But the scripture maketh no difference betweene first second marriage S. Paul saith For auoiding of fornication let euery man haue his own wife he saith not his first wife but generally so that it is lawfull for auoiding of fornication to marrie the second or the third wife as well as the first 2 If it be as lawfull to marrie the second wife as the first if it be for auoiding of fornication then secōd marriage doth no more hinder the receiuing of orders then the first but the antecedent is true for what should make the second marriage lesse lawful not any dutie that the wife or the husband oweth to the partie deceased for they are free in that respect set at libertie Rom. 7.3 Neither is the end of marriage made frustrate more now then before for hee that marrieth the second time may haue as good cause to doe it for auoiding of fornication as he had at the first 3 Second marriage make the worst of it you can is not so great a blot as fornication or adulterie or to haue a Concubine but these were no lets of priesthood in poperie Nay we reade that Augustine in the purer age of the Church that confesseth he had two Concubines yet afterward was made presbyter and at the last a Bishop for all that Wherefore there is no reason that exception should be taken against a twice married man seeing a fornicator is free Lastly of this opinion Augustine seemeth to be That it is as lawfull to marrie the second time the third as the first Ait Apostolus mulier alligata est viro quamdiu vir eius viuit non dixit primus secundus tertius aut quartus The woman is bound sayth the Apostle so long as her husband liueth he sayth not the first husband second third or fourth So the woman is as free after the first or second husbands death as when she was a virgin Yet if she can content her selfe with her widowes estate and haue the gift of continencie she shall do better not to marrie But if she haue not it is better to marrie S. Paul sayth not the first second or third time but so often as she hath neede rather then to burne THE THIRD PART WHETHER MINISTERS ought to refrayne the companie of their wiues being entered into orders The Papistes THey confesse that Peter and other of the Apostles were married but after their calling they had no companie with their wiues Rhemist Math. 8. sect 3 error 79 And so ought the Ministers of the Gospell sayth Bellarmine be kept from the vse of their wiues to whom they were married before their calling 1 The Priests of the lawe were bound to withdrawe themselues during the time of their seruice while they attended vpon the sacrifice and to forbeare the companie of their wiues much more the Priests of the lawe that must alwayes offer sacrifices must be alwayes free from matrimonie Rhemist Luk. 1. sect 10. Ans. 1. The Leuiticall priesthood did represent and shadowe forth the priesthood of Christ and their legall cleansings washings abstinence purifyings did shewe forth the holines and perfection of the priesthood of Christ wherefore the lawe of their abstinence doth no more binde vs then other of their legall purifications they haue their end in the priesthood of Christ. 2. We acknowledge no sacrificing priesthood in the newe testament nor any sacrifice in the Church for sinne but onely that sacrifice of atonement vpon the Crosse but our sacrifices are spirituall of praise and thanksgiuing therefore the argument followeth not from the priests of the law to those that are no priests Fox pag. 1166. 3. Purenes of life we grant is as much required now in Ministers of the Gospell as it was then in the priests of the lawe therefore they ought as well to haue libertie to marrie seeing matrimonie is the best remedie agaynst fornication and vncleannes of life 2 Another argument they picke out of S. Paules words 1. Corinth 7.5 Defraude you not one another vnlesse it bee by consent for a time that you may giue your selues to prayer If the lay man cannot pray vnlesse he abstaine from his wife the Priest that must alwaies pray must alwaies abstaine Rhemist Ans. 1. The lay man is bound to offer prayers alwaies as well as the Priest and so by this reason neither ought any lay man to performe his duetie to his wife if it were an hinderance to praier 2. S. Paul speaketh not here of all praier but of a speciall kind which to be made more feruent requireth fasting and abstinence which kind is not alway necessarie but vpon some certaine occasion 3. It is so farre off that a lay man cannot pray vnlesse he abstaine from his wife that many times he prayeth more quietly then he that is vnmarried or abstaineth if he haue not dominion ouer his lust Fulk annot 1. Cor. 7.5 The Protestants NEither the Apostles forsooke the companie of their wiues after they were called and chosen of Christ neither ought the Ministers of the Gospell to renounce abandon and forsweare the societie and fellowship of their wiues but rather to liue with them in all temperance and sobrietie for the good example of others 1 It is proued out of the 1. Cor. 9.5 that Peter the other Apostles did leade about their wiues in their companie and S. Paul there sayth that he also might vse the same libertie Likewise 1. Timoth. 3.5 S. Paul giueth rules concerning the house and familie of the Minister his children the behauiour of their wiues vers 11. But where I pray you is it fitter for the Ministers wife and children to be then with her husband By these places it is apparant that Ministers wiues were not excluded from their husbands companie as a thousand yeere after more it was decreed by Anselme that they should not dwell in house with their husbands nor talke with them without two or three witnesses Fox pag. 1167. 2 It is cleane contrarie to the scripture First our Sauiour sayth whosoeuer putteth away his wife except it be for fornication causeth her to commit adulterie Math. 5.32 By this rule therefore a Minister ought not for any other cause to put away and dismisse his wife but for fornication Ergo it is not lawfull because of his calling or vpon any other colour to send her away Secondly S. Paul sayth They ought not to defraud one another but for a time and that with consent 1. Corinth 7.5 Therefore if the wife will not consent her husband cannot goe from her nay though there be consent yet they must be asunder but for a time they cannot by consent altogether breake off and dissolue their marriage which was made before God though they would neuer
bond of mariage which is called repudium First then they affirme that the very bond and knot may bee dissolued in the mariage of Infidels if one of them after mariage become a Christian his reason is because mariage contracted in infidelitie is no sacrament and therefore may be dissolued Bellarmin cap. 12. Argum. Saint Paul sayth If the Infidell partie will departe let him depart a brother or sister is not in subiection in such a case 1. Corinth 7.15 Answ. Saint Paul giueth not liberty to the one partie at their pleasure vtterly to renounce the other as though they were no longer man and wife for Saint Paul had sayd before that if the Infidell partie bee content to dwell with the other he or she is not to be put away But his meaning is that if one partie wilfully depart the other is no longer bound nor in subiection for the performance of the mutuall dueties of mariage The Papists error 30 SEcondly separation from bed and boorde may be admitted they say for diuers causes Concil Trident. sess 24. can 8. Bellarmine nameth three Fornication according to Christs rule Math. 5. Heresie Tit. 3. An heretike must be auoyded Thirdly when one is a continuall offence to another a prouocation to sinne If thine eye offend thee pull it out Math. 5.29 Bellarmin cap. 14. Answ. Fornication we admit is a iust cause of separation and diuorce but not heresie for Saint Paul would not haue a woman to forsake an Infidell 1. Corinth 7.13 therefore not an heretike Wee must auoyd such that is take heede of their poysoned opinions and shun their company also where we are not otherwise bound Neither is the eye to be cut off where there is any hope but who knoweth whether the offensiue partie may returne to grace And this place proueth as well a finall â—utting off of mariage as a separation or disiunction The Protestants FIrst that there is no cause of vtter dissolution of mariage by way of diuorce but onely adulterie and fornication it is plaine by our Sauiour Christes wordes Math. 5.32 19.9 where neither infidelitie nor any cause beside is excepted but onely fornication Secondly Saint Augustine sometime was of opinion that the wife might be dismissed for infidelitie but he reuoketh and retracteth that opinion Lib. retract 1. cap. 19. For elsewhere he flatly concludeth thus A viro non fornicante non licere omnino discedere that it is not lawfull for a woman at all to leaue her husband if he committe not fornication De adulter coniug 1.7 And yet further to make this matter more playne we acknowledge no other cause of lawful diuorse in mariage but that only which is prescribed in the Gospell namely for adultery or fornication Math. 5.32 19.9 There is notwithstanding another cause whereby the mariage knot may bee dissolued though not for fornication as when one of the parties doth wilfullie renounce leaue and forsake the other vpon no iust cause but either of lightnes or for diuers religion as when an Infidel forsaketh a Christian a Papist a Protestant an heretick a true professor or vpon any other vnlawfull or vniust cause for the Apostle sayth playnely A brother or sister is not in subiection in such things 1. Corinth 7.15 that is is freed from the yoke or bond of mariage First it is plaine that the Apostle is so to be vnderstoode in this place for the word which he vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no longer a seruant or in subiection which is to be taken in the same sense as if he should say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he or she is no longer bound or tyed which word the Apostle vseth vers 39. And agayne the Apostle hath relation here to the fourth verse where hee sayth the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no power of her own bodie the husband likewise But now saith he the infidel partie hauing wilfully separated himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the innocent partie is no longer in subiection that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath now power ouer his owne body and is now become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free exempt from the mariage knot or bond in which sense the Apostle vseth the word verse 39. Secondly we must know what kinde of desertion it is that causeth a dissolution of mariage and in what manner First it must be malitiosa desertio a malicious departure without any iust cause But when as the husband is absent by consent about necessary affayres as the Merchant beyond the seas or is employed in some waightie busines as in warfare in ambassage or such like or is violeÌ„tly deteined in prison or captiuity amongst the Turks or elswhere In these the like cases the wife is bound to waite expect the returne of her husband vnles she be otherwise aduertised of his death SecoÌ„dly the innoceÌ„t partie must vse all meanes to reconcile reclaime and bring home agayne the wilfull and obstinate partie so departing if it be possible Thirdly if he continue in his obstinacie and departe hauing no purpose to returne the matter must be brought before the iudge or Magistrate in such cases who after publike citation of the obstinate partie and certaine knowledge that he refuseth wilfully to appeare being cited and is not otherwise letted to come may with mature deliberation pronounce the innocent partie free and at libertie to marrie according to Saint Pauls rule A brother or sister is not bound in such things Thirdly neither is Saint Paul contrary to our Sauiour Christ who alloweth no diuorce but onely for fornication for that is a diuers case from this whereof Saint Paul treateth And there is great difference betweene lawfull diuorse and vnlawfull and wilfull desertion for there the innocent partie first claymeth the priuiledge of separation here the guiltie partie first separateth himselfe there diuorse is sued and required here the innocent partie seeketh no diuorse but seeketh all meanes of reconciliation So that properly the setting free the innocent partie in this case cannot be called a diuorse Christ therefore speaketh of lawfull diuorce not of euery dissolution of mariage for then mention should haue beene made in that place of naturall death and departure which is confessed by all to be a dissolution and breaking off of mariage Thus haue I shewed mine opinion with Beza and others concerning thiâ— poynt Herein further as in all the rest referring my selfe to the determination of our Church and the iudgement of our learned brethren Beza 1. Corinth 7. vers 15. Amand. Polan Hemingius Tâ—leman Heshus THE SECOND PART WHETHER IT BE LAWfull to marrie after diuorsement for adulterie The Papists FOr adulterie one may dismisse another but neither partie can marrie again error 31 for any cause during life Rhemist Math. 19. sect 4. no not the innocent partie may marrie againe for the mariage knotte is not dissolued because of adulterie Concil Trident. sess 24. can 7. Argum. 1. Rom. 7.2 The woman
is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liueth nothing but death dissolueth the bond betweene man and wife therefore not lawfull to marry againe after diuorse Rhemist ibid. Ans. Saint Paul must be expounded by our Sauiour Christ who maketh exception of fornication Math. 5. Neither doth Saint Paul denie that mariage may be dissolued while they liue without breaking of wedlock but that although the knot holde during their life yet by death it is dissolued Againe Saint Paul hauing no occasion to intreat of diuorse speaketh of mariage as it standeth whole and sound by the ordinance of God that if a woman ioyne her selfe to another man her former wedlock being not lawfully dissolued she is a wedlock breaker Arg. 2. 1. Corinth 7.11 If she depart let her remayne vnmaried or be reconciled Ergo the parties separated for fornication may not marry again Rhemist Ans. Saint Paul speaketh of other separations which are caused by dissentions in mariage and not of diuorse for adulterie for he sayth If she depart not If she be put away neither was it so vsual a thing for reconciliation to be sought after solemne diuorse Againe he sayth Let not the woman depart as being in her choyce whether she would depart or not but in the case of fornication she was to depart or rather be put away whether she would or not The Protestants FOr no other cause in the world but only for fornication may there be either a finall separation or cleane dissolution of mariage by way of diuorse But for that cause our Sauiour hath graunted libertie both to dissolue matrimonie and to marrie againe Argum. Math. 5.32 Whosoeuer putteth away his wife except it bee for fornication committeth adulterie Ergo for fornication it is lawfull for a man to dismisse his wife Likewise Math. 19.9 Whosoeuer shal put away his wife except it be for whoredome and marrie another committeth adulterie Ergo for adulterie it is lawful for the man both to put away and renounce his wife and the wife likewise her husband for there is the like reason for both and for them to marrie agayne This libertie graunted by our Sauiour Christ by no humane law can be restrayned or cut off Argum. 2. Saint Paul sayth Let euery man haue his wife and euery woman her husband for auoyding of fornication and it is better to marrie then to burne Wherefore it is lawfull the first mariage according to the word of God being broken both for men and women to vse the remedie agaynst incontinencie and to be maried agayne for he speaketh generally of all Augustine sayth that he which putteth away his wife for adulterie and marieth another Non est aequandus ei is not in the same case with with him which for any other cause putteth away and marieth agayne But if it bee as lawfull for other causes to be diuorsed as for heresie infidelitie as the Iesuite telleth vs there should be no difference made betweene the second mariage of the one and the other Augustine in the same place though he bee elsewhere resolute against mariage after diuorse yet graunteth that it is not playne out of scripture whether he be an adulterer that marieth againe after diuorse for adulterie Sed quantum existimo venialiter ibi quisque fallitur but as I thinke we are euery one of vs herein deceiued I end this poynt better allowing Pollentius iudgement for this matter then Augustines betweene whom there is much discoursed of both sides Si mulier à viro non fornicante discesserit non ei licere alteri nubere propter praeceptum si autem à fornicante non ei expedire propter opprobrium If a woman departe from her husband being no adulterer it is not lawfull to marrie another because of the commaundement but if he be an adulterer it is lawful to marrie but not expedient alwayes because of the shame and reproch Ad Pollent lib. 1. cap. 6. THE THIRD QVESTION OF THE degrees in mariage prohibited FIrst of the supputation of degrees Secondly whether the degrees forbidden Leuit. 18. may be dispensed with Thirdly whether any other degrees may by humane law be prohibited beside those THE FIRST PART OF THE SVPPVtation and account of degrees THe degrees are either of consanguinitie which is of diuers persons comming of the same stock and blood or of affinitie which ariseth of mariage as when the kinsmen of either partie that is maried are by mariage allied to the other though not of his blood as Laban the brother of Rebecca was allied by mariage as also by blood vnto Isaac though not so neerely In both these kindes of kindred there is a right line both vpward and ascending as in consanguinitie the Father or Mother Grandfather Grandmother and so forth in affinitie the Father in law and mother in law the stepfather or stepmother as also descending as the sonne the sonnes sonne the sonne in law or daughter in law and their sonnes and daughters There is also a collaterall line in consanguinitie as brother and sister brother and sisters children vncle or aunt in affinitie the brothers wife sisters husband the vncles wife or aunts husband Now our aduersaries set downe these rules to know the degrees by The Papists error 32 1 IN the right line there are so many degrees as persons Abraham Isaac 1. Iacob 2. except the first from the which wee beginne the account as in this example Iacob is in the second degree from Abraham Answer We see no reason why the first should be left out for looke how many generations so many degrees But euery person is a generation And this is the manner of account in scripture as Math. 1. there are 14. generations reckoned from Abraham whereof Abraham maketh one Iudg. 14. Enoch the seuenth from Adam Adam being the first himselfe in that number Thus the scripture numbreth inclusiue not exclusiue inclusiuely comprehending also the number from whom the account beginneth And thus Abraham must be counted the first degree and Iacob not in the second but the third from him The Papists error 33 2 IN the collaterall line if the parties bee equally distant from the roote or stock of the generation looke how many degrees distant they are from the stock so is the distance betwene themselues Bathuel Rebecca Iacob Laban Rachel Iacob and Rachel are in the second degree because each of them is remoued from Bathuel in the second degree Bellarm. cap. 26. The Protestants Answ. NEither doe we allow this rule but rather follow the account of the ciuill law which in the collaterall line maketh so many degrees as persons excepting the stock which is not to bee counted in collaterall degrees because we begin not to number there Wherefore according to the rule afore sayd how many generations so many degrees According then to the account of the ciuill law which we here follow Iacob and Rachel are not in the second but the fourth degree each from other
and determination of the parents 2. Let vs heare what authoritie Augustine yeeldeth to the father ouer his children Agite vicem nostram in domibus vestris Episcopus inde appellatus est quia superintendit vnusquisque ergo in domosua si caput est domui suae debet ad eum pertinere episcopatus officiū de Sanct. Ser. 51. You saith Augustine their Bishop must supplye our stead in your houses a Bishop or Superintendent is so called because he ouerseeth therefore euery housholder being the head of his house ought to playe the Bishop in his house The father then is a Bishop ouer his children shall any man then dare to take any out of his house that is his Bishoprike or any sheepe out of his folde without the Bishop and sheepheardes consent THE THIRD PART WHETHER Married persons may with mutuall consent become votaries The Papists WIth mutuall consent the man the wife may separate thē selues and vow error 92 and promise single life for euer so long as they both shall liue Bellarm. Cap. 37. Marie and Ioseph were perfitely man and wife yet by mutuall consent they liued continently all their daies Ergo it is lawfull for married couples to separate themselues for euer both agreeing therunto Bellarm. cap. 37. Answ. 1. It appeareth by the text that there was no such thing purposed by Ioseph before he was admonished by the Angell in a dreame but that as she was already betrothed so there was an intent on Iosephs parte that they should come together Math. 1.18 But that in the meane time Marie was found with childe by the holy ghost and so from that time Ioseph being a iust man neuer knew his wife there was no such purpose or vowe before 2. That this was an extraordinary exāple who seeth it not When any man shall be admonished by an Angell as Ioseph was and shall haue the like cause as Ioseph had to abstaine which shall neuer bee hee may be bould to doe as Ioseph did The Protestants THey that are once ioyned together in marriage and haue made a couenaunt each to other before God can not separate them selues though they both consent there being no other cause but a purpose of single life for more holines sake 1. It is flat contrary to S. Pauls rule 1. Corinth 7.5 Defraud not your selues except it be with cōsent for a time that you may giue your selues to fasting and prayer and againe come together lest Satan tempt you for your incontinencie First the Apostle saith directly they should but separate themselues for a time Secondly we doe thus reason out of his wordes there is no cause of separation but to be giuen to fasting and prayer but this may be done by a separation for a time neither is it necessary we should alwaies be giuen to fasting and prayer but vpon speciall occasion therefore perpetuall separation is not needfull 3. They that are long separated are subiect to fall into tentation the same cause therefore that moued them first to marrie for auoiding of incontinencie ought to moue them to come together againe Therefore it is not good nor lawful they should separat them selues for euer 2. That which God hath coupled no man ought to put asunder but they that are married haue made a couenant to God Pro. 2.17 as well as to themselues and are ioyned by Gods law together Ergo they can not dissolue their mariage by their owne power and will the Lord hauing an interest therein Augustine Thus writeth Non licet excepta causa fornicationis coniugem a coniuge dirimi nec sterilem coniugem fas est relinquere vt faecunda ducatur de nupt concupiscen Lib. 1. Cap. 10. It is not lawfull for married couples one to be separat frō another vnlesse it be for fornication nor to leaue a barren wyfe to marrie a frutefull Therefore if fornication onely be a iust cause of finall separation there can be no other If there were any other it is most like it should be for procreation of children But neither for that cause is a man to leaue his wife Ergo for no other Therefore not for any vow of continencie is marriage to be dissolued or any separation to be admitted Bellarm. saith that by their separation Marriage is not dissolued Auns It is asmuch dissolued as by your law in cases of diuorse 1. For these are your words for aduoutrie one may dismisse another but neither party can marry againe for any cause during life Rhemist Math. 19. Sect. 4. So ye allowe onely a kinde of dismission in the case of adultery and so you do in the vowing of continencie And thus you make this cause as forceable as the other to break off the Matrimonial duety which is contrary to the gospell THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER MARIage contracted not consummate may without consent be broken for the vow of continencie The Papists error 93 THeir opinion is that if the mariage be contracted onely and ratified but not yet consummate by the parties comming together it is lawful for either of them without the others consent to vowe chastitie cap. 38. Bellarm. His reason is because it is lawfull for a man to passe from a lesse perfect state of life to a more perfect if it may be done without detriment as this may be for yet they haue no children and the partie may as well bee maried to another Bellarm. Answ. First a single life is not alwayes the perfecter state nor to all as it is not to them that haue not the gift to containe as it is most like hee hath not that is contracted and hath made promise of mariage for then all this needed not Secondly though there be none of those impediments named yet there is a greater namely their fayth promise made each to other before God which they ought not to violate Thirdly Saint Paul saith If thou be bound to a wife seeke not to be loosed 1. Corinth 7.27 But they that are espoused one to the other are bound vnlesse you will say that the couenant made by them vnto God Prouer. 2.17 bindeth not The Protestants MAtrimonie whether ratified onely by lawfull contract or espousals or consummate ought not any way to be broken with consent or without for Monasticall profession 1 Our reason is because it is perfect mariage already in substance and before God which is ratified by contract onely and solemne vowe and couenant made each to other And being thus betrothed the one giueth power of their body to the other and now they are no more free That this mariage is perfect before God and in substance it appeareth by the law of Moses by the which a man defiling a mayd betrothed was to suffer death as well as if hee had committed vncleannes with a woman already maried Deuteron 22. verse 22.23 And Math. 1.18 Marie that was but betrothed to Ioseph is by the Angel called his wife vers 20. 2 August saith Coninges fidem sibi pariter
that he defloured virgins that he lay with Stephana his fathers concubine likewise with Ramera and Anna and her Neece for these beastlie parts and such like he was deposed there was no heresie obiected agaynst him And thinke you not he was worthily vnpoped yet the Papists thinke no for they admit no cause of depriuation but heresie This deuillish Pope through the harlots of Rome for he was well beloued of them recouered his Popedome agayne but at the length the Lord himselfe displaced him for in the tenth yeere of his Popedome being founde without the citie with an other mans wife hee was so wounded of her husbande that within eight dayes after hee dyed Fox pag. 159. Boniface the 7. tooke Pope Iohn the 15. who was made Pope a little before and hee expelled yet recouering the Papacie by force hee tooke him put out his eyes and threwe him in prison where he was famished Likewise was Iohn the 18. serued by Gregorie the 5. his eyes were thrust out first and he afterward slayne I meruaile how our Catholikes can excuse these furious outrages of their ghostly fathers of Rome In the Councel of Brixia Gregorie the 7. was deposed not for heresie but for other abominable vices as maintayning of periurie and murthers for following Diuinations Dreames Sorcerie Necromancie Fox p. 181. Pope Iohn the 23. deposed in the Councel of Constance Eugenius in the Councel at Basile yet neither of them for heresie And yet our aduersaries would still make vs beleeue that Popes cannot be deposed for any crime but heresie 2 We can haue no better argument then from our aduersaries themselues It is a sport to see what diuers opinions they hold and doe runne as it were in a maze not knowing which way to get out Pighius thinketh that the Pope cannot possiblie fall into heresie and therefore for no cause may bee deposed Some other thinke that the Pope for secret and close heresie is actually deposed of GOD and may also bee deposed and iudged of the Church thus holdeth Iohann de turre cremat Caietanus is of opinion that for manifest and open heresie the Pope is both alreadie by right deposed and may also actually be deposed of the Church But Bellarmine confuteth all these There is a fourth opinion most grosse that the Pope neither for secret nor open heresie is either alreadie of right deposed or may be actually depriued of the Church Lastly commeth in the nice and daintie Iesuite with his quirkes and quiddities who sayth that the Pope in case of manifest heresie ceaseth to bee Pope and is euen now deposed and if after the Church proceede agaynst him they iudge not the Pope for now hee is no Pope Which opinion how absurd it is I haue declared before THE FIFT PART CONCERNING THE ORIGInall and beginning of the primacie of Rome The Papists THey doe boldly affirme without any ground that the primacie of that See error 45 hath his beginning from no other but Christ they are the Iesuites owne words Romani pontificis ecclesiasticum principatum authore Christo principium accepisse that the princely dignitie of the Bishop of Rome acknowledgeth no other author or beginner thereof but Christ Bellarm. cap. 7. lib. 2. 1 They would build the primacie of the Romane Church vpon certaine places of scripture as Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church Luk. 22. I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy faith should not faile Iohn 21. Christ sayd to Peter feede my sheepe Ergo Peter and Peters successors haue their primacie from Christ Bellarm. To these places Tunstal and Stokeslie two Popish Bishops yet in this poynt holding the truth did properly make answere in their Epistle sent to Cardinall Poole To the first They affirme out of the ancient expositors that it is ment of the faith which was then first confessed by the mouth of Peter and not of Peters person Further confirming out of S. Paul that neither Peter nor no creature beside could bee the foundation of the Church for no other foundation can any man lay sayth the Apostle besides that which is layd Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. To the second they answere that Christ speaketh onely of the fall of Peter which hee knewe in his godlie prescience giuing an inkling vnto him that after his fall hee should bee conuerted and strengthen his brethren for if it were ment also of Peters successors they must first faile in faith and after confirme their brethren To the third The whole flock of Christ was not committed to Peter to feede for he himselfe testifieth the contrarie exhorting all Pastors to feede the flocke of Christ which was giuen them in charge by Christ as it followeth in that place when the chiefe shepheard shall appeare ye shall receiue the incorruptible Crowne of eternall glorie He calleth not himselfe the chiefe shepheard but onely Christ. It is euident therefore say they that your 3. scriptures ment nothing lesse then such a primacie ouer all Fox pag. 1067. 2 There can bee no time assigned since Christ say they when this primacie should begin nor no author named that brought it in Ergo it must needes bee attributed to Christ he must of necessitie bee found the author thereof We answere the time may bee assigned the authors named when and by whom this pretensed and vsurped authoritie was brought in as euen now wee will shewe The Protestants THat the vsurped iurisdiction of Rome tooke not the beginning from Christ nor his Apostles neither was heard of for many yeres after we thus are able to proue it 1 Before the Nicene Councel which first deuided the regiment of the Church into foure Patriarchal seates Rome had small or no preeminence So Aeneas Syluius witnesseth who afterward was Pope of Rome and called Pius the 2. Ante Nicenum concilium sibi quisque viuebat ad Romanam ecclesiam paruus habebatur respectus Epist. 301. Before the Nicene Councel euery Bishop liued to himselfe there was no great respect had to the Church of Rome What more euident testimonie can wee haue then of a Pope himselfe Yet the Iesuite sayth that it is false in part which hee writeth He is somewhat mannerly in making him but halfe a lyer yet I wonder that he will confesse any vntruth at all in his ghostly fathers words Bellarm. cap. 17. lib. 2. Secondly in the Councel of Nice there was no primacie of power giuen to Rome ouer the whole Church but the other Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch Ierusalem were priuiledged in like manner in their confines as the Bishop of Rome was in his They had all equall authoritie giuen them in their owne prouinces Sic Tonstall Stokesli ad Poolum Thirdly afterward there was a certayne primacie of order graunted vnto the Patriarke of Rome aboue other Patriarkes as to haue the first place to sit first to giue his sentence first One cause hereof was for that Rome was then the Emperiall and
better argument can we haue against this Popish decree then the great vncleannes and foule enormities that haue been brought by the meanes thereof into the Church In the time of Gregorie the first who enioyned his Clergie to liue single commaunding on a time his seruants to catch him some fish out of his Motes and Ponds in stead of fish they brought vnto him sixe thousand heads of yong children whereupon he fetching a great sigh with himselfe commended then the saying of the Apostle It is better to marrie then to burne Bellarmine hath no better answere then to denie the storie which notwithstanding is found in the Epistle of Huldericus Bishop of Augusta which he sent to Pope Nicholas Fox pag. 1155. In Anselmes time after the restraint of Ministers marriage great rumors and complaint was brought to him of the execrable vice of Sodomitrie which began to raigne in the Clergie Pope Pius the second saide hee sawe manie waightie causes why wiues should bee taken away from Priests but he saw more why they should be restored to them againe Bishop Iewell Apol. cap. 8. diuis 3. Bernard saith Tolle de Ecclesia honorabile coniugium c. Take from the Church honorable Matrimonie shall you not replenish it with incestuous persons concubinaries Sodomiticall vices Hereupon the popish Catholikes seeing their owne infirmitie began thus to salue vp the matter Si non castè tamen cautè if thou deale not chastly yet deale charily Yea they are not ashamed thus to write If any of the Priests should bee found imbracing of a woman it must bee expounded and presupposed that hee doth it to blesse her I but saith Bellarmine these are the abuses of single life will you condemne a good thing because of the abuse by the same reason saith he coelum terra tollenda sunt Heauen and earth must be taken away because they were abused of the heathen and taken for Gods cap. 21. Answere First wee say not that these bee the fruites of single life which Saint Paul commendeth in all those that haue the gift but of this co-acted and constrained Popish Virginitie which is imposed indifferently vpon all and cannot haue any good vse secondlie when you can proue that restraining of Ministers marriage is of Gods ordinance as it is certaine Heauen and earth are of his making then wee will grant vnto you that it may haue a right vse and for the abuse ought not vtterly to be abolished 4 Lastly Augustine saith Quae nubere volunt ideo non nubunt quia impunè non possunt melius nuberent quà m vrerentur id est quà m occulta flamma concupiscentiae in ipsa conscientia vastarentur Those Virgins which would marrie but cannot because of restraint and reproch might better marrie then burne that is to say then with the secret flame of concupiscence to be wasted and consumed in their conscience Wherefore it followeth that all they both Ministers votaries Virgines that haue not power to absteine should doe better for all their profession and vow to marrie then to burne THE SECOND PART WHETHER any ought to bee admitted to the Ministerie after second marriage The Papists THey denie not but that Bishops and Ministers hauing been once married error 78 are rightly ordeyned so that afterward they doe not companie with their wiues but they which haue been either themselues twice married or haue married a widdow which had a husband before are vtterlie vncapable of holy orders Bellarmine cap. 23. Rhemist Timoth. 3. sect 4. and this they call Bigamie 1 They reason thus out of Saint Pauls words 1. Timoth. 4.2 A Bishop must be the husband of one wife that is say they that no kinde a way was Bigamus or had two wiues either at once or one after another And they proue their interpretation thus First as Saint Paul describeth a widow of the Church 1. Timoth. 5.9 that hath been the wife of one husband so here hee saith of a Bishop that he should be the husband of one wife but that is meant successiuè of one husband after another for it was neuer seene that one woman should haue more husbands then one at once nor neuer suffered either amongst the Iewes or Gentiles therefore it must be so taken here a husband of one wife that is who hath been but once married as it is taken there a wife of one husband that neuer had more not onely simul at once but not successiuè not successiuely one after another Bellarmine cap. 23. Ans. First there were many women both among the Iewes and Gentiles that had forsaken their first husbands and were vnlawfully coupled to others and so had moe husbands at once and likewise many men that had done the like to their wiues but afterward repented and were conuerted to the Christian faith but yet were not admitted to any publike office in the Church because of their former infamous life Of such the Apostle speaketh in both these places and not of those that married one wife or one husband after another It is therefore great boldnes and a greater vntruth to say that there were none such heard of in those dayes for although it were neither lawfull then nor now yet both many such were heard of in those dayes and it were no hard matter to finde out some now among the papists that haue had more then one wife at once Secondly he is not to be counted Bigamus or Digamus that is coupled and ioyned to one wife after another lawfullie but he that vnlawfully at once enioyeth more then one Fulk Annot. Timoth. 5. sect 6. cap. 3. sect 4. 2 Againe say they the high Priest in the lawe was not permitted to marrie a widow Leuit. 21.13 Which lawe being obserued in the high Priest ought much more to be kept now Rhemist Answere That lawe concerning the high Priest did onely appertaine to himselfe who was a figure of Christ neither can it be extended to the Ministers of the Gospell no more then any other partes of his office that were peculiar to that state and calling Fulk Annot. 1. Timoth. 3. sect 4. The Protestants THat it is not by the word of God forbidden that any man should marrie the second yea the third time after the decease of his wife neither that hee is to be counted vnchast or giuen to wantonnes in so doing much lesse hee that in his first marriage taketh a widow neither that to haue been twise married ought to be a barre or a stop from entring into the state and calling of the Ministerie if otherwise the man be qualified and furnished with sufficient graces for that calling thus it is proued 1 They that cut off such as haue been twise married from behauing any calling in the Church doe sauour of the heresie of Montanus into the which also Tertulliane fell who condemned second marriage for if once marriage be no impediment nor preiudice to him that is to bee ordained but
so fayne themselues vnlesse it be for fornication then without consent the marriage knot is broken 3 Peter left not the companie of his wife after he was made an Apostle for he had a daughter called Petronilla of whom the popish legends write much holines which must needes be borne after he was called Peter And agayne it is proued by her age for she was so young in the persecutioÌ„ vnder Domitian that Flaccus the Countie desired her in marriage but if she had been borne before Peters Apostleship she must haue been threescore yeere old at that time or hard vpon Fulk Math. 8. sect 3. 4 Augustine thus writeth of this matter Vna sola esse causa posset qua te id quod vouisti non solum non hortaremur verumetiam prohiberemus implere si forte tua coniux hoc tecum suscipere animi seu carnis insâ—rmitate recusaret Epistol 45. There may be one cause and no more which would make me not only to moue you to performe that which you haue vowed but to disswade and forbid you namely if your wife by reason of her weakenes should refuse to beare the yoke with you Therefore by Augustines sentence neither ought a Minister that is married performe the vow of continencie which he made without consent of his wife for he speaketh generally of vowes made by those that are ioyned in Wedlocke THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING THE maintenance of the Church by tithes COncerning the maintenance of the Church there are diuers poynts wherein we our aduersaries agree The maintenaÌ„ce of the Ministers of the Church is either by temporal possessions which haue been bestowed vpon the Church by the gift of deuoute and religious men or els they haue inheritance from their friends and a patrimonie of their owne or els they liue of the tithes and oblations of the people 1 We grant and agree vnto them that the Church Ministers beside the portion of tithes may lawfully enioy temporall lands which the Church of ancient time hath been endowed withall But we yeeld vnto them vpon certaine conditions First there must be a moderation vsed in all such gifts which are bequeathed to the Church for Ecclesiasticall persons ought not to be too greedie and hastie in receiuing whatsoeuer in simplicitie and blind deuotion any man shall giue vnto them as if they see that others are empouerished by the gift whereby they are enriched Thus the Priests offended in our Sauiour Christs time who allured the people to bring their offerings to the Altar though their parents wanted in the meane time whom they were bound to relieue by the law of God This also was a common practise in time of Poperie So the priests might be enriched they cared not greatly though all the stock of their patrones and founders were vndone who because they were vnsatiable had no measure in entising simple men to giue ouer their lands and Lordships into their hands the statute of Mortmaine was made not without iust cause to be a rule vnto theÌ„ that otherwise could not rule themselues Augustine doth highly commend Aurelius Bishop of Carthage and worthely for this one act A certaine rich man of Carthage hauing no children gaue all his substance to the Church reseruing onely the vse thereof for his life time afterward the man had children Reddidit Episcopus nec opinanti ea quae donauerat The Bishop restoreth vnto him that which hee gaue not looking for it nor making any account of it In potestate habuit Episcopus non reddere sed iure fori non iure poli It was in the Bishops power not to restore the gift but by the lawe of the court not by the lawe of heauen I pray you how many such examples can ye shewe me in the time of popish superstition This then is the first thing required that although it be lawful for the Church to enioy the bequests of their benefactors yet it should be done with some limitation As the Leuites beside their tithes had cities appoynted them but the number was set downe they should not exceede 48. in all and to euery citie was a quantitie and circuite of ground allotted which should in length and bredth contayne euery way 3000. cubites Numb 35. vers 5.8 2 It must also be prouided that the gifts and legacies bestowed vpon the Church bee for the maintenance of pietie and true religion and to good vses not to nourish idolatrie and superstition or if they be giuen through ignorance of the time to such vnlawfull purposes they ought by the Prince to be conuerted to better and more godly vses As now in England the lands of Colledges which were first giuen to maintaine that abominable Idoll of the Masse are turned to the maintenance of learning and true religion So was the lawe of Moses that the gold and siluer brasse yron tinne lead which the Israelites should receiue of the heathen first should passe through the fire and so bee made cleane and fit for holy vses Euen thus according to this lawe the lands consecrate to superstition hauing now passed through the fire of Gods word and triall of the truth may safely be vsed to the glorie of God in aduancing and setting forward true religion and vertue 3 Another thing must bee required that Church-men ought not to abuse the possessions of the Church to maintayne pride idlenes and ryotous liuing for in case they doe notoriously spend and wast the Church goods the Prince by whose authoritie they were giuen to the Church may iustly take from them their superfluities not leauing the Church destitute of sufficient maintenance This is notably proued by Iohn Husse in the defence of Wickliffes articles And we haue seene the practise thereof in England in the late suppression of Abbeyes wherein though some of those lands might otherwise haue been disposed of yet the prouidence of God notably appeared in bringing desolation vpon those Cels of sinne and vncleane cages of birdes neither hath this been an vnusuall and vnaccustomed practise in the Church for Princes to correct the misdemeanour of Priests by cutting them short of their temporalties for in Augustines time the Christian Emperours dispossessed the Donatists of their Churches and possessions and gaue them to the Catholike Bishops And at that time the Donatists cryed out as the Papists doe now Quid mihi est imperator What hath the Emperour the King to doe with our lands Augustine answereth Secundum ius ipsius possides terram by the lawe of Princes the Church enioyeth her possessions Recitemus leges imperatorum videamus si voluerint aliquid ab haereticis possideri Let vs then rehearse the lawes of Emperours and see whether they suffer heretikes to enioy the Church possessions Secondly concerning the second kind of maintenance which ariseth by the proper and peculiar inheritance which Church ministers haue we also yeeld our consent that a Minister to whom some inheritance is befallen is not bound
the secret fire And so we denie not but that men ought by fasting and prayer to labour for that precious gift But if they feele the fire to burne within them still then are they to vse the remedie prescribed by Saint Paul that is to marrie Secondly sayth Bellarmine Saint Paul giueth libertie of mariage onely to those which were free and had not vowed continencie cap. 31. Answere First the Apostles words are generall Let euery man haue his wife I say the Rhemists he speaketh of those that were maried before their conuersion that they might still vse and keepe their wiues Yea but Saint Paul speaketh of all vnmaried in the verse next before It is good not to touch a woman I trow he meaneth not it is good for a man that is maried not to touch his wife Secondly it is a generall libertie which he granteth to all ver 9. If they cannot conteine let them marry but many votaries cannot contayne as it may appeare by the vnchast liues of your Monkish rabble therefore hauing the disease they may vse the remedie that is marrie Argum. 2. Virginitie and continent life is onely to be required of those which haue the gift of continencie But all haue not that gift Ergo the vow of Virginitie is not indifferently to be made by any That the gift of continencie cannot be had or obtayned of all neither resteth in our free wil it is plaine by scripture 1 Math. 19.12 He that is able to receiue this gift let him receiue it Ergo all are notable to receiue it Bellarmin First though they are not able to receiue it yet yet they may if they will and aske for it by prayer for the text is Some haue made themselues chaste for the kingdome of God whereby it appeareth that it is in the will of man cap. 31. Answer Hee speaketh cleane contrary to the text for Christ sayth None receiue it but to whom it is giuen and the wordes are qui capere potest not qui velit hee that can receiue not hee that will receiue And they are sayd to make themselues chaste not because it is in their owne choyce but being enabled of God and hauing receiued power ouer their will they are sayd to make themselues chaste hauing receiued power by the spirit of God So our Sauiour sayth Come vnto me all ye that are laden Math. 11. yet no man commeth to Christ but his father first draweth him Iohn 6.44 Wherefore it being a peculiar gift of God all cannot haue it neither are sure to obtaine it though they aske it by prayer because wee haue no promise to bee heard Rhemist When a man is bound to abstaine by vow or other necessarie occasion as imprisonment banishment sicknes no doubt if he labour for the gifte of continencie he may haue it Ans. They that binde themselues to a rash vowe haue no promise to be heard praying for continencie Secondly they that are driuen vnto any such necessitie as you speak of which they are not a cause of themselues neither can auoide as in long and perpetual sicknes it is certaine that God will giue the gift being sought by lawful meanes But as for banishment and imprisonment they are not of such necessitie but that the husband is bound to follow the wife and the wife her husband Fulk 1. Cor. 7.6 Neither are many of those meanes commendable which were vsed in Monkerie for some of them were superstitious and vnlawfull as they vsed Phisick and medicine to correct or slake and extinguish nature in them Francis was wont to couer his bodie with yce and snow others did whip themselues This was not to subdue and tame the bodie but to destroy and kill the bodie and make it vnfit for other dueties The scripture prescribeth no other meanes but prayer and fasting and labour in our vocation Some of them againe vsed externall exercise of their bodie as by fasting by lying harde by watching which in themselues were not amisse but they leaue the chiefe and principall which is the spirituall meanes for the outward exâ—rcise of the flesh without this is little worth Coloss. 2.23 Bellarmin To beleeue is no lesse the gift of God then to liue chaste yet we exhorte all men to beleeue and they doe vowe and promise it in baptisme why may they not as well vowe continencie although it be a peculiar gift cap. 31. Ans. They are both indeed the giftes of God but one is necessarie to saluation namely to beleeue and is promised to all that will seeke for it But the other gift is not necessary neither hath any such promise Secondly Saint Paul calleth this a proper gift But if all men were capable of it how could it be called a proper gift One after this manner another after that sayth the Apostle But if euery man might attaine to that one gift of continencie they should not all haue their proper gift but all one gifte and after the same manner And though Saint Paul should meane that to liue chastely in wedlock be also a proper gift of God as Bellarmine vrgeth and we denie not yet it remaineth still that the other is a more singular and proper gift and is not therefore commonly and indifferently bestowed vpon all Thirdly Saint Paul sayth that a man may marrie his Virgin if neede so require 1. Corinth 7.37 But if euery one labouring for the gift of continencie might obtayne it there should then be no necessitie of mariage which the Apostle here affirmeth Lastly the Rhemists say that the marriage of those that haue vowed is the worst sorte of incontinencie and fornication 1. Corinth 7. sect 8. Augustine saith cleane contrarie Non ipsae nuptiae talium damnandae iudicantur sed damnatur propositi fraus damnatur fracta votifides postremò damnantur tales non quia coniugalem fidem posterius inierunt sed quia continentiaa primam fideÌ„ irritam fecerunt de bono viduitat cap. 9. The mariages of such are not condemned but the violating of their vow is condemned not because they afterward entred into the league of mariage but because they did break the first fayth of continencie Augustine sayth not that such mariages are no mariages but plaine adultery fornication But maketh the mariage lawful reproueth their rashnes before in making and their vnstedfastnes nowe in breaking their vowes THE FIFT QVESTION CONCERNING Monasticall persons which do enter into that profession THere are foure sortes of people which the papists do offer great wrong vnto in drawing them to the profession of monkery First vnto the yonger sort which haue libertie to marrie Secondly to the children and sonnes whom they make Monks without consent of their parents Thirdly they say maried persons by mutual consent may betake themselues to a Monks habite Fourthly if mariage be contracted not consummate or finished they may one leaue another without consent first had THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE younger sorte are to bee admitted to professe